On 01/10/2008 10:30 AM, Martin Rubey wrote: > Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> If I am allowed to dream then I would like to be able to write something like >> >> (x: A) \oplus (y: A): A == ... >> >> (with \oplus being the actual (unicode) character for that operator). >> >> Of course that raises lots of questions and I am not 100% sure whether it >> would be a good idea to >> >> 1) allow unicode in identifiers > > certainly not, unless you also provide means to input them in a ordinary > terminal.
Each Unicode character has a name. http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=2295 http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/character.jsp?a=2A01 So one could for example still use 7bit ASCII in .spad / .as files and there write (x: A) _'CIRCLED PLUS' (y: A): A == ... and the Axiom User Interface would do the conversion. Mathematica does similar things. Type in CirclePlus[A, B] // StandardForm However, there is still some mechanism missing to specify whether some identifier is prefix/infix/postfix and what its precedence is. I don't care at the moment for such syntactic sugar. In fact, I also fear that enabling true Unicode (not the syntactic sugar I mentioned above) in identifiers might make some programs harder to read. I guess, I would have lots of trouble understanding a program where the identifiers are denoted by chinese characters. Does someone know about the JAVA experience? They allow Unicode in identifiers. Is the above chinese problem really a problem? Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
